> I think this creates a bit of a 'catch-22' situation because we need a > decision process to decide on a decision process. I think that until we > have such a process, we need to stick to the status quo, which has > generally been that we discuss things with the community, and if there > is disagreement, then a smaller group of people make the decision (I > personally would prefer a more formalised voting based system with a > fairly large number of eligible voters, but both Poul and Peter seem to > favour a system where we define a fairly small set of people from a > range of different groups who can vote, and only use this mechanism to > make a decision when the community has discussed an issue and not > reached agreement).
I'm not really commenting on whether the proposed system is suitable or not, at least not yet :) just that given we have a tracker, we have an item in the tracker discussing this issue, and we are encouraged to use the tracker for such discussion. So this solution and the justification for it should have been posted to the tracker item first before announcing that the solution has been decided upon. Currently I am getting the impression that any discussion of tracker items is superfluous and decisions will always be made by the Auckland meeting. > Just to clarify, are you objecting to all or any of the deadlines (on > any of the specific issues listed below) or are you happy with the > actual tracker items (as opposed to the decision-making process)? the latter :) _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
